ADC Crisis: Appeal Court Erred, Should’ve Ordered Accelerated Hearing Of Matter — Lawyer Oshoma

A Lagos-based legal practitioner, Liborous Oshoma, has offered fresh insight into the ongoing leadership crisis rocking the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the attendant dispute between th party and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) over the derecognition of party leadership by the latter, following an order of the Court of Appeal.

In a Facebook post on Saturday morning, Oshoma questioned the propriety of the appellate court’s directive for parties to maintain the “status quo ante bellum” after it had already struck out an interlocutory appeal filed by the emabatlled factional chairman of the party, Senator David Mark.

Oshoma explained that the dispute stemmed from a suit instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe, who approached the Federal High Court seeking judicial interpretation of the ADC constitution to affirm his claim to the party’s leadership following the substantive chairman’s resignation. He also filed an ex parte application for interim relief, which the court declined, instead ordering that other parties be served with a notice to show cause.

Dissatisfied with that directive, Senator Mark proceeded to the appellate court, challenging the lower court’s decision. However, Oshoma noted that the Court of Appeal refused to entertain the appeal, citing failure by Mark’s legal team to obtain the required leave of court.

“Having struck out the interlocutory appeal for want of competence… the Court of Appeal should have dismissed the matter simpliciter without further orders,” Oshoma argued.

Despite declining jurisdiction, the appellate court went on to order all parties to maintain the ‘status quo ante bellum’ and refrain from actions that could create a ‘fait accompli’ or render future judgement nugatory, a move Oshoma described as questionable.

“Considering our knack for conflicting interpretations of court decisions… no preservative order has been made at the lower court,” he said, suggesting that the appellate court’s directive may have compounded confusion rather than resolved it.

He further argued that, given the urgency of the matter and the electoral timetable for the 2027 general election, the Appeal Court should have directed parties to seek an accelerated hearing of the substantive suit at the Federal High Court.

The legal expert also compared INEC’s handling of the ADC dispute with its past conduct in similar political crises.

He recalled that in 2016, “INEC maintained a neutral stance during the PDP chairmanship dispute between Ahmed Makarfi and Ali Modu Sheriff, withholding official recognition until a definitive Federal High Court ruling was reached.”

“The Commission adopted a similar ‘wait-and-see’ approach during the more recent leadership tussle in the Labour Party involving Lamidi Apapa, Julius Abure, and Nenadi Usman,” he added

However, he noted a contrasting approach in 2022 when INEC continued to engage with the All Progressives Congress (APC) leadership under the interim leadership of Governor Mai Mala Buni despite multiple court cases.

“This contrasts with its 2022 handling of the APC crisis; despite over 200 court cases challenging the legitimacy of Mai Mala Buni’s caretaker committee, INEC continued to engage with the party leadership, primarily maybe, because no rival faction had formally emerged to claim control,” Oshoma stated.